Silicon Investor (SI) -- The First Internet Community

STOCKTALK

We've detected that you're using an ad content blocking browser plug-in or feature. Ads provide a critical source of revenue to the continued operation of Silicon Investor. We ask that you disable ad blocking while on Silicon Investor in the best interests of our community. If you are not using an ad blocker but are still receiving this message, make sure your browser's tracking protection is set to the 'standard' level.

Technology Stocks : Qualcomm Moderated Thread - please read rules before posting -- Ignore unavailable to you. Want to Upgrade?

To: carranza2 who wrote (50712)	3/1/2006 3:27:40 PM
From: JohnG	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197227

Carranza.A lot of guessing here. My guess is that, when the initial license expires, it is time to look at new patents acquired (and old patents expired) since the date when the initial license was signed. I suspect that the licensing fee and royalty rate for the new license are based on those for the old license plus an adjustment for patents added to or deleted from the group of patents on the effective date of the initial license. Just a guess

To: carranza2 who wrote (50712)	3/1/2006 3:32:52 PM
From: matherandlowell	Read Replies (1) \| Respond to of 197227

Guys: To which patents does the FRAND language apply? When QCOM licensed the original spread spectrum patents for use in WCDMA, the licensing body set up the standard with the understanding that royalties would be FRAND. It would be hard to argue that the royalties on those patents were anything but fair, reasonable, etc. But new IP does not necessarily need to meet any standard language. The HSDPA patents should be outside of the FRAND language, shouldn't they? If companies like Broadcom don't want to pay royalties on new IP, what obligation does Qualcomm have to license new patents? I would think they have no obligation.